Holder and legalized marijuana

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Poll question: Holder and legalized marijuana

Holder vows to enforce pot laws in California if voters legalize marijuana
By Michael O'Brien - 10/15/10 01:55 PM ET

Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to continue enforcing federal laws against marijuana in California even if the state's voters legalize the drug.

[gateley]

1. Other: He has to say that because it's a federal law, I'm just hoping the Feds

won't expend any energy pursuing it. They have better things to do and the writing is on the wall.

[BootinUp]

3. there is no way the feds

don't make major headaches for Calif if this passes. At least thats my prediction.

[gateley]

10. God, how useless. It'll just turn more people against the government, and

it's going to be legalized nationally some day in the future, can't they think of anything better to do?

Why do you think they'll pursue this? What would they have to gain?

[BootinUp]

11. see #8

and don't kill the messenger. Hell I could be wrong.

[thunder rising]

13. can't they think of anything better to do? The US gov is the champion of lost

crusades. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan ... they will spend more money chasing $10 bags than $10B wall street criminals.

[onehandle]

2. Holder doesn't write the laws. nt

[Rex]

4. This will have to be cleared up by the stoners on the SCOTUS.

You know whois you are!

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. Um, I thought the Feds backed off based on state laws in early 2009?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29433708/

[BootinUp]

6. pretty straightforward

that was talking about medical use dispenseries not a general decriminalization.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. The two are both illegal under federal law, aren't they?

There is nothing legally obvious about the distinction.

[BootinUp]

8. You won't like this response

Are they both politically acceptable? Defined as, the Dems won't lose another chunk of national support as a result. I suspect not, but clearly that was Obamas determination in 08.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. I like that response fine

It's honest.

Yes, I do recognize the political distinction.

But a lot of posts on this topic (not yours) are along the lines of #2 in this thread -- Holder has no choice.

But on medical MJ raids it appears he did have a choice.

[gateley]

15. Well if it's politically acceptable in CA and passes, we know it wouldn't be

politically acceptable to lots of others around the country, which is why I said I think Holder HAD to say that. Kind of gets him off the hook, sounds good, but IF they actually go balls to the walls to prosecute, I think that would be politically UNacceptable to a big part of Obama's base.

[RainDog]

12. kick - what a stupid move - the Democrats need California to win

and the majority of the American public nationwide supports medical mj by an OVERWHELMING majority and has for 10 years.

Holder needs to go to the DEA and have hearings on rescheduling cannabis so that it is no longer classified as a schedule 1 drug.

This attitude toward cannabis, knowing it is already in use as a medicine sold in pharmacies in three other western democracies as sativex, creates disrespect for law and law enforcement.

The lies simply need to stop.

Obama should decriminalize cannbis across the nation. States can decide whether they want to legalize now or later.

[QC]

14. HOLDER DOESNT HAVVE A MAGIC WAND!1!!!!111!!

[Life Long Dem]

16. Attorney General Eric Holder question from reporter

Reporter - Attorney General Eric Holder, is it your job to enforce federal laws?


Attorney General Eric Holder - Yes it is.

In fact Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to continue enforcing federal laws (against marijuana in California even if the state's voters legalize the drug.).

Got it?

[scheming daemons]

17. Interesting... DU is advocating that the Attorney General SELECTIVELY execute the laws of the U.S.

I don't think that's part of his oath.


"I solemnly swear to execute the laws of the United States of America, except when I think the laws suck."